Socrates
In order to begin with something, I reprint a very brief (and inadequate) articleI wrote a couple of years ago on Socrates. I decided to do this, in spite of its inadequacies, because it attempts the beginnings of an answer to the quesion "What is philosophy?" and the related one: "What is a philosopher?" Please feel free to add your thoughts.
Socrates (written Saturday, 22 February, 2003)
It seems as if everything took place in 1965. In that year, as part of my induction into first year Philosophy, I was introduced to Greek philosophy, especially as expressed by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (even though Socrates never actually wrote anything). This aspect of the course was almost useless; we used poor translations of the original Greek; the commentaries provided were one-sided; and the lecturers presented these philosophers to us in a form that, for me at least, was devoid of meaning. Although I read Plato’s Republic for a second time for the Political Science component of Government II in 1967 and although I learned a little more from it on that occasion, I basically gave the Greeks away for the next thirty-odd years. Not until mid-2000 did I return to these philosophers – especially Socrates and Plato; this time, however, they almost blew me away by their relevance to things I had experienced since first reading them.
Socrates occupies a unique position in the Western world. He never wrote anything, yet his influence has been profound. A mystic and a sage whose wisdom has rarely been surpassed, his message to the world has been twisted almost beyond recognition by friend and foe alike. Both have turned him into a “Western intellectual”, when he was much more like a Taoist sage or an Aboriginal elder. Yet, even though Socrates speaks to us only through others, such as Plato, and even though the translations from the Greek have rendered him almost unrecognisable, a sympathetic reconstruction is possible. Plato has him say: “I am subject to a divine or supernatural experience … It began in my early childhood – a sort of voice which comes to me” (Apology, 31d). While it is inconceivable that Socrates would ever have said this, the picture of Socrates as someone with direct access to such a voice is credible. First hand accounts of Socrates in various life situations generally convey a picture of a person who felt himself to be divinely guided and who acted like someone who was so guided, even in battle (he took part in several military campaigns when he was young).
As for the message that Socrates conveyed to his followers, it sounds so similar to what we find in the Vedas and Upanishads that one is tempted (as Schopenhauer did) to assume a direct influence from the latter. Whether this was the case or whether, as is more likely, sages and mystics of all ages and in all places simply “tune in” to the same truth, the similarities are striking. Socrates believed that a cosmic intelligence operated in the universe. Human beings were a part of this essence and had knowledge of the essential nature of the universe prior to being born and their essence continued to exist after death. All so-called “learning” is a “recollection” of what we already “know”.
Socrates believed that the ordinary physical world of time and space was but an image or reflection of an ideal, perfect world. This was an ultimate, changeless reality. The process of what today we would call “becoming enlightened” he called (in the English translation!) “education”. As we grow, develop, learn, become educated (enlightened) we gradually acquire more and more “knowledge” (ie consciousness or awareness) of the essential nature or reality (outside of time and space), that is, of the ideal or perfect world. This (what today we would call) expanded consciousness has nothing to do with ordinary sense-perception (seeing, hearing and so on) and nothing to do with merely verbal or rational or cognitive or intellectual knowledge or understanding. The nature of this perfect, ideal world is perfect love, perfect beauty, perfect justice and light. A person who has reached this state is called a “lover of wisdom”, that is, a “philosopher” (philein = love; sophia = wisdom). A “philosopher”, for Socrates meant someone who was a genuine sage, an enlightened person or a mystic or a visionary. A philosopher is someone who is literally in love with truth. Such a person is characterised by what some schools of thought call “the sixth state of consciousness”. In The Republic, Plato has Socrates teach that an ideal state is one governed by such people. These are people for whom the welfare of the whole is paramount.
Now, I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that the above is an “interpretation” of Socrates’s thought, as it is of Socrates, the human being. However, so are all the “learned” theses that have been written over the last 2,500 years. Yet interpreters of Socrates rarely acknowledge that they are attempting to fit his thought into conceptual and linguistic categories with which they are comfortable (because familiar). I’m convinced that the interpretation offered above is closer to the nature of Socrates’s teachings than the hundreds of attempts to fit him into a rational/philosophical mould. But I can no more prove this than the rationalists can prove that their Socrates is the real one.
But perhaps this has given you a taste. Try Plato’s Republic for starters (remembering what has been said above about the translation.
Socrates (written Saturday, 22 February, 2003)
It seems as if everything took place in 1965. In that year, as part of my induction into first year Philosophy, I was introduced to Greek philosophy, especially as expressed by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (even though Socrates never actually wrote anything). This aspect of the course was almost useless; we used poor translations of the original Greek; the commentaries provided were one-sided; and the lecturers presented these philosophers to us in a form that, for me at least, was devoid of meaning. Although I read Plato’s Republic for a second time for the Political Science component of Government II in 1967 and although I learned a little more from it on that occasion, I basically gave the Greeks away for the next thirty-odd years. Not until mid-2000 did I return to these philosophers – especially Socrates and Plato; this time, however, they almost blew me away by their relevance to things I had experienced since first reading them.
Socrates occupies a unique position in the Western world. He never wrote anything, yet his influence has been profound. A mystic and a sage whose wisdom has rarely been surpassed, his message to the world has been twisted almost beyond recognition by friend and foe alike. Both have turned him into a “Western intellectual”, when he was much more like a Taoist sage or an Aboriginal elder. Yet, even though Socrates speaks to us only through others, such as Plato, and even though the translations from the Greek have rendered him almost unrecognisable, a sympathetic reconstruction is possible. Plato has him say: “I am subject to a divine or supernatural experience … It began in my early childhood – a sort of voice which comes to me” (Apology, 31d). While it is inconceivable that Socrates would ever have said this, the picture of Socrates as someone with direct access to such a voice is credible. First hand accounts of Socrates in various life situations generally convey a picture of a person who felt himself to be divinely guided and who acted like someone who was so guided, even in battle (he took part in several military campaigns when he was young).
As for the message that Socrates conveyed to his followers, it sounds so similar to what we find in the Vedas and Upanishads that one is tempted (as Schopenhauer did) to assume a direct influence from the latter. Whether this was the case or whether, as is more likely, sages and mystics of all ages and in all places simply “tune in” to the same truth, the similarities are striking. Socrates believed that a cosmic intelligence operated in the universe. Human beings were a part of this essence and had knowledge of the essential nature of the universe prior to being born and their essence continued to exist after death. All so-called “learning” is a “recollection” of what we already “know”.
Socrates believed that the ordinary physical world of time and space was but an image or reflection of an ideal, perfect world. This was an ultimate, changeless reality. The process of what today we would call “becoming enlightened” he called (in the English translation!) “education”. As we grow, develop, learn, become educated (enlightened) we gradually acquire more and more “knowledge” (ie consciousness or awareness) of the essential nature or reality (outside of time and space), that is, of the ideal or perfect world. This (what today we would call) expanded consciousness has nothing to do with ordinary sense-perception (seeing, hearing and so on) and nothing to do with merely verbal or rational or cognitive or intellectual knowledge or understanding. The nature of this perfect, ideal world is perfect love, perfect beauty, perfect justice and light. A person who has reached this state is called a “lover of wisdom”, that is, a “philosopher” (philein = love; sophia = wisdom). A “philosopher”, for Socrates meant someone who was a genuine sage, an enlightened person or a mystic or a visionary. A philosopher is someone who is literally in love with truth. Such a person is characterised by what some schools of thought call “the sixth state of consciousness”. In The Republic, Plato has Socrates teach that an ideal state is one governed by such people. These are people for whom the welfare of the whole is paramount.
Now, I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge that the above is an “interpretation” of Socrates’s thought, as it is of Socrates, the human being. However, so are all the “learned” theses that have been written over the last 2,500 years. Yet interpreters of Socrates rarely acknowledge that they are attempting to fit his thought into conceptual and linguistic categories with which they are comfortable (because familiar). I’m convinced that the interpretation offered above is closer to the nature of Socrates’s teachings than the hundreds of attempts to fit him into a rational/philosophical mould. But I can no more prove this than the rationalists can prove that their Socrates is the real one.
But perhaps this has given you a taste. Try Plato’s Republic for starters (remembering what has been said above about the translation.
posted by Andrew Reiner at 1:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home